I cover science and public policy, environmental sustainability, media ideology, NGO advocacy and corporate responsibility. I'm executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project (www.GeneticLiteracyProject.org), an independent NGO, and Senior Fellow at the World Food Center's Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy at the University of California-Davis. I've edited/authored seven books on genetics, chemicals, risk assessment and sustainability, and my favorite, on why I never graduated from college football player (place kicker) to pro athlete: "Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It". Previously, I was a producer and executive for 20 yeas at ABC News and NBC News. Motto: Follow the facts, not the ideology. Play hard. Love dogs.

Attacks on Vinyl Backpacks and Plastic Covers Raises the Question: Will Crusaders, including Senator Schumer, Continue to Ignore the Science on Phthalates? Jon Entine reports

Today’s toxic headline: a plastic gun is pointed at your children and it looks like SpongeBob, Hello Kitty and Dora the Explorer.

Campaigning NGOs and many journalists share a not-so-attractive sensibility: they are often uncomfortable with complexity. Dividing the world, and prickly science policy issues, into black and white makes for exciting narratives. Unfortunately it’s invariably wrong, authoritarian and, as Freud would say, crazy (“neurosis is the inability to tolerate ambiguity”).

That’s certainly the case in today’s anti-science campaign du jour: a ferocious attack on the harmless backpacks, book covers and lunch boxes that your children tote to school.

The hysteria kicked off earlier this week with a news conference organized by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice starring anti-chemical flack Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) at which the CHEJ released a guide ominously titled, “Hidden Hazards: Toxic Chemical Inside Children’s Vinyl Back to School Supplies”.

“These dangerous chemicals manufactured by ExxonMobil have no place in our children’s school supplies,” said Mike Schade, CHEJ’s “Markets Campaign Coordinator” who orchestrated the media blitz. The non-profit, composed almost entirely of fulltime campaigners, has one lone non-PhD scientist on staff—with no research expertise in this area.

The circus worked—the news conference resulted in dozens of variations on the “backpacks will kill you” headline in hundreds of news reports in top end media sites. According to CBS News, the report “showed that about 75% of back to school supplies that they sampled contained “dangerous phthalates, or PVCs.”

CHEJ purports to take a scientific look at the dangers posed by phthalates, which are plasticizers used in thousands of common products, including toys, cosmetics, medical devices, cabling, flooring and even pharmaceutical pills—that help make them flexible and durable. Its narrative is not so much bereft of science but, even more sinister, it distorts it.

What does the science actually say?

Few chemicals on the market today have undergone as much scientific scrutiny as phthalate esters. And environmental and industry groups pitted against each other in the debate have no shortage of studies they can use as ammunition. Self-proclaimed environmental groups cite research linking outsized doses of some phthalates to reproductive problems in rodents. Mainstream scientists counter that phthalates and adverse health effects in humans never have been connected.

The CHEJ and similar alarmist “studies” rely heavily on the work of Shanna Swan, a controversial, self-proclaimed campaigning scientist, who sent anti-phthalate campaigners into overdrive in 2005 with the publication of a controversial study that purported to show that phthalates has a feminizing effect on boys.

The National Toxicology Program, looking specifically at the phthalate DEHP, found that Swan did not show any statistical association between DEHP metabolites and genital development, which challenged her central thesis. Another phthalate found in school, products, DINP, has been deemed safe by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Most recently, in NeuroToxicology, the Mt. Sinai Hospital researcher linked phthalates and another controversial plasticizer, bisphenol A, to a variety of health problems including neuro-developmental delays, behavioral issues and reduced fertility. Her evidence? She examined urine samples from 10 Mennonite women —yes, 10 of 1.5 million Mennonites worldwide. From a science perspective, any conclusions she might make from such a dismally small sample is literally ridiculous—but the media had a field day, nonetheless.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Interesting that you find the “science” suspect when there are multiple, INDEPENDENT studies of all kinds supporting the developmental and reproductive toxicity of phthalates. Do you only trust in industry-funded studies? Talk about suspect studies! Do you not see the inherent conflict of interest in relying on industry-funded studies (either dirctly or indirectly to academic researchers who receive industry grants) to determine the safety of a product it’s trying to sell? Were you a witness to the Enron scandal, or the mortgage-backed securities meltdown? Revisit your history of how profit/fee-based conflicts of interest skew “sound analysis”, and then we’ll see whose research is flawed/unsound.

Numerous independently funded studies, epidemiological, observational, and otherwise, have pointed to a strong link between phthalates and reproductive as well as developmental toxicty. In addition, I can attest to my own personal sensitivity to it. I became extremely chemically sensitive after a pesticide overexposure at my former place of employment. The toxic overexposure seemed to trigger a kind of internal alarm system in my body that made me all too aware of the less-than-halcyon fumes emanating from a number of everyday items in my home-from shampoos to laundry deterent and shower curtains. Seemingly overnight, a number of everyday chemicals seemed to become problematic for me (I felt like Julianne Moore in that movie “Safe”), but certain ones were far more problematic than others . Once the chemical sensitivity was initiated, my body became aware of what PVC/phthalates were literally overnight-as their smell and offgassing molecules (in everything from shower curtains to tote bags and vinyl coverings on treadmills and yoga mats) seemed to trigger headaches, joint pain, and literal nausea-much the same way you feel if you inhale too much of any noxious gas. Removing the offending substance makes the problem instantly disappear. Given my body’s newfound, instinctive repulsion to these substances, I would hazard a guess that the compound is not particularly healthy for us humans, even those who are not as acutely sensitive as I am. Since I’m sure you place very little stock in anyone’s personal anecdotes, perhaps you’ll listen to the science that the FDA, EPA and EC seem to find sound:

“Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate widespread exposure of the general population to phthalates (CDC 2009). Humans are exposed to phthalates by multiple routes, including inhalation, ingestion, and to a lesser degree absorption through the skin. Several observational human studies have reported an association between exposure to certain phthalates and adverse developmental and reproductive effects. The ubiquitous presence of phthalates in the environment and the potential consequences of human exposure to phthalates have raised concerns, particularly in vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and infants. A number of regulatory authorities have begun taking steps to more closely regulate certain phthalates. For example:  Congress has prohibited the use of DBP, DEHP, and another phthalate—butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP)—in children’s toys at concentrations higher than 0.1 percent (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 2008).  The European Commission identified DBP, DEHP, and BBP as reproductive toxicants (Directive 2005/84/EC), and the European Union prohibits their use as ingredients in cosmetics (Directive 2005/90/EC).  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added certain phthalates, including DBP and DEHP, to the list of chemicals of concern under the Toxic Substances Control Act and included them in the Toxics Release Inventory list (EPA 2009).  FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health issued recommendations regarding minimizing exposure to PVC devices containing DEHP and provided recommendations for high-risk procedures (CDRH “DEHP in Plastic Medical Devices”). Of the phthalates for which significant concern has been expressed because of their reproductive and developmental toxicity, only DBP and DEHP have been used in CDER-regulated drug or biologic products. The recommendations in this guidance apply only to DBP and DEHP.”

First, studies are studies. No study is “independent.” If, like Shanna Swan, you are openly committed to an end result before you embark on a study–as she acknowledges she is–that you are not independent. The proof, to invoke a cliche, is the pudding–does the study hold up under scrutiny. Many so-called “industry” studies faced far stricter controls and independent monitoring than many university studies. So you’ve created a a classic strawman argument here, compounded by the fact that most university and government studies are n agreement that there is no persuasive evidence that stable phthalates pose harm to humans based on normal exposures.

Actually, you’ve not even supplied any examples of “independent” studies that provide persuasive evidence that typical exposures to phthalates are harmful. Why? Because there aren’t any. What you have for the most part are rodent studies in which the animals were exposed to the plasticizer at levels 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the highest exposure faced by humans. If you know the science of epidemiology, and it appears you do not, you would know that such rodent studies are at most yellow flags to do more serious research. I’m imploring you, if you are not yet totally resistant to science, to read the CDC’s summary analysis of chemical toxicity released last year and linked in my report. It very clearly summarizes the issue. At typical exposures–and at many multiples thereof–humans are not in danger.

Plus, your long diatribe, and the faux science fear-o-gram released earlier this week, does not take into account the differences between different types of phthalates. Not all phthalates are created equal. So-called low-density phthalates widely used in children’s toys and medical tubing—DEHP, BBP, DBP and DIBP—are considered more problematic because they are chemically less stable and more readily release outgasses into the environment. More tightly bound high-density plasticizers such as DINP, DIDP and DPHP are more stable and resilient. Using risk/benefit analysis, high-density phthalates offer significant benefits for literally millions of uses, and in many cases there are no safe and effective alternatives.

Life is about choices. You can’t just ban all plastics. There are no substitutes in many cases for many of these highly useful chemicals.

Sounds like you’ve been through the ringer personally. The fact that you had a work related exposure to toxic chemicals underscores the very point: toxicity is a reflection of dose and duration. You could just as well have had such a trigger reaction if you were exposed at a coffee manufacturing plant. But we wouldn’t use your personal example as a justification to ban all coffee.

Science is rarely about black and white. No one is suggesting to cut off research. My concern is the hysteria generated by faux science NGOs and, disgracefully, encouraged by Senators. That’s just shameful.

The thing about science is how different scientific results can be from anecdotal experiences. Phthalates have been in use for 60+ years and there are huge caches of studies performed on them. All of the good studies (those performed under controlled circumstances and as many variables/confounders accounted for as possible) show the same thing: phthalates are not harmful to primates and humans. Rodent studies have shown various effects including reprotoxicity and carcinogenicity and most of the pathways identified in those studies have been shown to not be active in primates (or non-rodents, really).

When the alleged effects of any substance can be traced back to only a handful (or fewer) studies that have been discredited long ago, it’s only the fanatics who will continue to hold onto those erroneous results after everyone else has moved on. See mercury in immunizations, BPA, phthalates, faked moon landings, JFK’s assassination, etc. How much time and money must be wasted on these things before we can move on?

We need a consumer reports type rating on NGOs to target those that put out pseudo science garbage. People think a study indicates authority when it just can mean one person or organizations point of view is put in a ‘study’. And politicians should be rated on this as well. Schumers probably getting campaign funds for pushing this. He;s a leach.

Mennonites should not be compared to “typical” women, because they are genetically unique and not at all typical.

“We hypothesized that the consistent lifestyle of an Old Order Mennonite (OOM) community would provide an ideal setting in which to characterize sources of exposure to BPA and phthalates. We obtained urine samples from ten mid-term pregnant OOM women (ages-21–39) to determine concentrations of 9 phthalate metabolites and BPA and collected a self-reported survey of participants’ household environment, product use, and lifestyle within a 48-h period prior to urine collection. We compared their metabolite concentrations to pregnant women included in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2007–2008).”

My father was 100% Mennonite and his family tree was thoroughly intermarried (inbred). The group seems to be quite Masculine. Firstly these are a self selected group of people who’ve had the testicular fortitude to be martyred and persecuted for defiantly holding to their religious beliefs for close to 500 years with the less courageous leaving the group all along the way. The men including myself are generously endowed by our creator with all manly evidences in the flesh. Unfortunately our women are also a tad manly. Way too much facial hair and shot putting ability to be considered normal. And this applies to even the ones that don’t eat “mountain Oysters”(bovine testicles) as a regular Mennonite staple.

I suspect that any group of typical women exposed to any kind of chemical or placebo, would appear “artificially” feminized when compared to our masculine Mennonite women.